Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

“But OBL’s letter deserves more than a “skimming” and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the “leader” of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

“There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . .”

Hugh “reads Osama” as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt’s analysis of OBL’s latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not “radical Islam,” of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of “new bin Ladens” and identifies the non-Muslim world’s true “original enemy.”

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

“And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion — and as immune to reason — as the believers of any creed.”

Equating religious devotion with an “immunity to reason” is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike’s self-nullifying argument

“Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being’s body against their will — only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born.”

Who “claims the right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a “right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of “radical Islam”“good point – what does “victory” mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with.”

Misidentifying the source of “radical Islam” makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed — as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah, Islam’s “sacred” texts — is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.